I disagree with the content of the court's opinion here, but I'm afraid they are on sound legal ground. We have free speech rights, but only as private citizens. Courts have consistently ruled that employers can restrict speech of employees (especially government employees) while on the job. For example, the Hatch Act restricts political speech by public employees on the job. Public employees cannot advocate for particular candidates or parties on work time. Where the City of Oakland may have gone wrong was by allowing some political speech while forbidding others. That may open them to an action based on discrimination. But they would be legally protected if they proscribed both sides from using work time or a company bulletin board for non-work related political appeals.
So, where do you draw the line?
How long before saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes is considered "hate speech"?
When will, "I disagree with your liberal interpretation" be grounds for arrest?
"on sound legal ground"
I hope you are very wrong.
True---but this is a case of UNEQUAL application of the rules. One faction (the queers) are openly permitted speech espousing THEIR position on company time with company resources, but the Christians are prevented from doing so. Either let BOTH factions speak, or shut BOTH factions up.
As usual, the Ninth Circuit is nuts.
The city has set a precendent by allowing the homosexual agenda to be promoted on the bulletin board and in e-mails. They have even allowed anti-Christian messages to be sent without interference. By doing so, they have given tacit approval to use of city bulletin boards and e-mails for such purposes.
By specifically denying Christian groups access to the same priviledges, they have in fact, discriminated against them on religious grounds and are guilty of denying the Christians their 1st amendment rights.
well said
What about restrictions on viewpoint discrimination? The government employer was allowing pro-gay, anti-Christian speech>